NATHAN NEWMAN

Forget the War, Organize for Peace

Progressives cannot win the debate on the war. But we may be able
to win the debate on the peace, if we start organizing now.

Let's be clear -- vast majorities of the American population are
rightly pissed off at the attacks of Sept. 11. Based on that, they
are not going to easily second-guess Bush and the political
establishment's military strategy in Afghanistan.

It is a conceit of the left that a few protest signs at a rally
will make much difference in stopping the bombing. It's said that
generals fight the last war, but it appears far more accurate to say
that of today's antiwar movement, which at times seems to recycle the
same slogans and tactics it's been using for decades. There is a
justified demand for justice for the victims of S11 and a real fear
for personal safety that makes the tin ear of many protests
counterproductive. When rallies look the same as every other antiwar
rally in the past, the message is that we treat Americans anger in
this case as unjustified as every other war we have denounced.

In any case, even in Vietnam it took years for public protest to
have any effect on the war and then only because the political
establishment itself had come to believe in the worthlessness of the
policy. The hardened majority supporting this war is unlikely to be
pressured to change its mind by any demonstration.

So that hard reality has to guide progressive strategy.

On the other hand, even if the antiwar movement is now largely
irrelevant, the policy in Afghanistan is already collapsing of its
own wrongheaded weight. The words "quagmire" are already being
mentioned in the mainstream press, the media has noted the savage
turn of Muslim opinion against us globally, the failings of the
alternative Afghani opposition have been discussed extensively, and
even the military has admitted that the Taliban are far tougher
military opponents than they expected.

The Bush administration has already publicly started downplaying
the significance of bin Laden, emphasizing that his network is
worldwide. They are rapidly recognizing that the whole "war" rhetoric
has them in a dead end where an inconclusive battle in the poorest
country in the world is largely irrelevant to promoting the security
of the American people. While this won't stop the bombing in the
short term, it may avoid more escalation and encourage a search for a
"declare victory and go home" exit strategy.

That is the point where progressives can make a difference. If we
start acting strategically, we can win the fight to create a more
just "peace"-- or whatever we call the uneasy period that will emerge
when Bush's policy collapses in Afghanistan.

Too many times in the past, the Left mobilized relentlessly during
a war without even a plan for what to do when the shooting stopped.
But what kind of peace emerges is often far more important to the
peoples lives than the war itself. The problem is that a relentlessly
negative antiwar message leaves little room for a positive
alternative vision.

We need a Left that can say Yes -- yes to justice, yes to
tolerance, yes to peace, yes to rational policy that will both save
lives globally while making Americans secure in a more peaceful and
cooperative world.

If progressives can't promise security to the American people,
they will be remain irrelevant politically. If the Left wants to make
an effective case for an alternative policy, we cannot mumble a quick
statement that our policy is more effective, before rushing to the
global justice policies we like to talk about. We need to make a
muscular case that a serious multilateral engagement on both criminal
investigations and global justice are a credible proactive policy
that will achieve justice on behalf of the families of the dead of
Sept. 11 and prevent terrorism in the future.

The lesson of dealing with terrorism in every nation has been that
war and repression do not solve the issue -- the goal has to be to
isolate the violence-junkies, who fester like sores on misery, from
the general population. As long as misery and despair prevails, the
extremists end up protected in safe havens and by the silent
collaboration of that desperate population. Rational security
measures are useful, but ultimately addressing real misery and real
suffering is the only way to leave the nihilistic murderers isolated
and without legitimacy.

What is needed is to combine that message with the increasingly
effective global justice message that had emerged after Seattle. If
anything changed on Sept. 11, it was that the American people
realized that they don't live on an island immune from the global
forces and the millions who die globally each year because of
desperate poverty. The safest world is one where everyone has
something to lose from the violence and chaos of terrorism. Once the
passive allies of terrorism develop more of a stake in preserving a
just peace, terrorists will end up exposed by those previously
passive allies now unwilling to risk new rounds of violence.

That lesson in attaining security is what the Left has to offer
the American people. Until we start offering it, rather than the thin
gruel of empty antiwar rhetoric, the Left will be politically
irrelevant in this debate.

Nathan Newman is a longtime union and community activist, a
national vice president of the National Lawyers Guild and author of
the forthcoming book Net Loss on Internet policy
and economic inequality. Email nathan@newman.org or see
www.nathannewman.org.